RealGM

[url]http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2009/08/31/daily77.html[/url]


Take a read of this article and see if there isn't something in there that is interesting (hint-it's the $29 million profit the Suns had last year)

Now I am a firm believer that owners are entitled to run their businesses at a profit, and a good one at that. I also think players salaries are out of whack. That said, haven't we been led to believe that the Suns were just barely breaking even? I can't remember the sources so I need a little help with that. Am I off base with that one?

Thought I would share.

They may be just barely breaking even, as far as money available to go back into the team itself is concerned. Who knows how that $29m in profit is divided up between players/personnel, television/radio promotion/coverage, marketing, charity work, etc.

SideSwipe wrote:http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2009/08/31/daily77.html


Take a read of this article and see if there isn't something in there that is interesting (hint-it's the $29 million profit the Suns had last year)

Now I am a firm believer that owners are entitled to run their businesses at a profit, and a good one at that. I also think players salaries are out of whack. That said, haven't we been led to believe that the Suns were just barely breaking even? I can't remember the sources so I need a little help with that. Am I off base with that one?

Thought I would share.

The article doesn't go into much detail - that number doesn't sound right to me as far as pure net profit. Sounds a little high from what I've read in the past. The Suns have traditionally been valuated at pretty good numbers though, so Sarver is definitely misrepresenting if he makes it sound like he needs to cut costs "to stay alive".

SideSwipe wrote:http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2009/08/31/daily77.html


Take a read of this article and see if there isn't something in there that is interesting (hint-it's the $29 million profit the Suns had last year)

Now I am a firm believer that owners are entitled to run their businesses at a profit, and a good one at that. I also think players salaries are out of whack. That said, haven't we been led to believe that the Suns were just barely breaking even? I can't remember the sources so I need a little help with that. Am I off base with that one?

Thought I would share.

Yeah, hard to know just what that $29 mil really means but taken at face value, even if it's net profit, clean and free after all considerations, that's not much in terms of revenue on such an expensive operation. And with the 100% lux tax, not hard to piss $29 mil away.

Do we know if that includes paydown on the debt and how much?

I still say we should all get together and buy the team and let the boys from Oz run it

justinb80 wrote:They may be just barely breaking even, as far as money available to go back into the team itself is concerned. Who knows how that $29m in profit is divided up between players/personnel, television/radio promotion/coverage, marketing, charity work, etc.

Don't forget all of the owners too. They don't say if it is gross profit or net profit so the figure meaningless.

Well as far a I know, Sarver inherited a $200m debt with the team when he purchased it - the interest accrued on such a debt would be in the range of 10%-15% per annum, so to just pay off the interest alone and not changing the principle owed, the Suns would still have to pay $20m+ every year just to keep the debt at $200m.

Just a thought?

Zero chance that refers to gross profit.

nevetsov wrote:Well as far a I know, Sarver inherited a $200m debt with the team when he purchased it - the interest accrued on such a debt would be in the range of 10%-15% per annum, so to just pay off the interest alone and not changing the principle owed, the Suns would still have to pay $20m+ every year just to keep the debt at $200m.

Just a thought?

Didn't the suns obtain a loan from the NBA and maybe refinanced the debt?